A true story.
When CTR was abbot of Samye Ling he inherited a large colony of rats that came with the building.
Most of the time the humans and rats coexisted, although they (the rats) often stole foodstuffs used in pujas.

But around that time it became clear that the local authorities were taking a keen interest in what when on..there were reports of hippy types building fires in the nearby forest etc.
A letter was received saying that a formal inspection of the kitchens was going to take place on a date about six weeks away. They wanted to see if the hygiene was good enough to continue to offer food to paying guests...'The Rats!' was everyone's first thought.
There was a well known Bhutanese Tantric staying at the time. He and CTR went round putting papers inscribed with mantras in the holes asking them politely to leave.
They didnt.
Reluctantly CTR phoned Rentokil.
" The most important thing is that the Wheel of The Dharma is turned here" he said.

There is no such thing as a 'pest', just humans who believe they are so important they can kill other beings just for their own comfort.

There are humane ways to trap, even rats (I've done this in India) and release them elsewhere. There are methods to remove the source of food etc. or provide a habitat the creatures will find more attractive than the one you want to occupy. Giving them paper (mantras) food to eat is simply daft - next thing you'll be telling me they used rice paper or parchment!

Rats will not stay where there is no food - calling Rentokil for rats is at best ingorant and arrogant, at worst totally uncompassionate and deserving of reaping the karma directly of the act of the killing ordered.
Which is better, Samye Ling with a few rats, or even hundreds like Karni Matha, or 'turning the wheel of Dharma' by killing sentient beings?

It seems it would have been shut down if the inspectors found rats there, so it is a choice between abandoning the monastery and killing the rats.

Not really. Health & Safety would issue an immediate imporevement notice and at worst close the kitchens until the kitchens were free of rat presence. The rest of the place could have rats if they wished so no, not a matter of abandoning the monastery, just preventing access to kitchens and removing access to the food.

That was exactly the situation Aryjana.
As I said there less than a month before the inspection. Starving them out was not an option given the timeframe. There was good reason to suspect that the local authority was out to close the place. Scotland in those days was a hotbed of Presbyterian zeal.
I have perhaps not adequately conveyed the nature of the rat population, They were everywhere..literally. In the kitchens and the shrine room, in the bedrooms.
Samye Ling is and was completely isolated. For teachings to happen it was essential that the kitchens stayed open. At any given time there were 60-100 students staying there.
I should add that CTR was very upset at having to make the decision. He was as soft hearted as any of his countrymen regarding animal life. I saw him once when he had hit a small bird when driving. He wept bitter tears

The men the local authority duly arrived, suited and booted. They made lots of recommendations and made a few mandatory changes.

There was not a rat to be seen.
The Buddha Dharma continued to be taught ..at that time in Scotland this happened uniquely in Samye-Ling.

If you use the word 'mind' without defining your terms I will ask you politely for a definition.
This is not to be awkward. But it's really not self-explanatory.

tomschwarz wrote: ↑
But first off, noble truth #1, we are all going to die and suffer a great deal of sickness which is resl hell, no mater what. So within the reality of the three types of suffering, appreciating the right of all sentient beings to happiness can be a pathway to liberation, no question. But its always helpful to keep a handle on the dark side of reality.

What do you mean by the dark side of reality?

Suffering can be overcome as is shown by the other noble truths after he first one.

The dark side of reality is the first noble truth (note its not called a "noble false"). I am pretty certain that "suffering can be overcome " is misleading. For example Suffering has always existed and will always exist. I think what is meant by the third noble truth, the truth of cessation, is more about accepting suffering, particularly the suffering of others, such as dinosaurs who eat each other all the time (enter the living dinasaur: shark) just like you eat living things all the time, just like the animals on earth are killing and eating each other by the thousands on billions (just on earth) every second.

It was Chogyam Trungpa (CTR?) who said that the "bowl of cherries" perspective is "not workable". One important step, for example, in the dharma of 3 realms of existance "desire realm - form realm - formless realm" idea, is overcoming attachment to equinimity (a.k.a. peace of mind). So the point is that when we break down the barriers (of the illusion of independent self) we not only have our own suffering, we have everyone else's too. Like Simon's ))))))) it is an honor to be part of the reality of others' suffering! But what is that honor/happiness exactly, if i am taking on suffering? Well that is Buddhism.... ...the core of the third noble truth: realization of dependent origination ( see Nagarjuna)

So i undetstand and respect your wish not to kill things. And i think that the best way to support that wisdom further, is to reconcile that wisdom, with the constant killing that is life. For example to breath is to kill. To walk is to kill. Of course as you have said, much worse than going for a nice walking meditation on a sunny day, is going for a nice walking meditation on a sunny day and relishing the death of the countless beings that you are..... ...killing.

Fyi, my personal take on this subject is to limit the suffering of death, sickness, change and fundemental ignorance in other beings. But i also see these as the first noble truth. In other words, life is not a bowl of cherries (CTR), we will all die, all good things will change (and for the worse), we will all get sick, and the one aspect of suffering that we can directly impact is fundemental ignorance. So i am trying to balance this thread with that perspective (death is unavoidable, fundemental ignorance is avoidable).

i dedicate this post to your happiness, the causes of your happiness, the absence of your suffering the causes of the absence of your suffering that we may not have too much attachment nor aversion. SAMAYAMANUPALAYA

tomschwarz wrote: ↑
But first off, noble truth #1, we are all going to die and suffer a great deal of sickness which is resl hell, no mater what. So within the reality of the three types of suffering, appreciating the right of all sentient beings to happiness can be a pathway to liberation, no question. But its always helpful to keep a handle on the dark side of reality.

What do you mean by the dark side of reality?

Suffering can be overcome as is shown by the other noble truths after he first one.

The dark side of reality is the first noble truth (note its not called a "noble false"). I am pretty certain that "suffering can be overcome " is misleading. For example Suffering has always existed and will always exist. I think what is meant by the third noble truth, the truth of cessation, is more about accepting suffering, particularly the suffering of others, such as dinosaurs who eat each other all the time (enter the living dinasaur: shark) just like you eat living things all the time, just like the animals on earth are killing and eating each other by the thousands on billions (just on earth) every second.

It was Chogyam Trungpa (CTR?) who said that the "bowl of cherries" perspective is "not workable". One important step, for example, in the dharma of 3 realms of existance "desire realm - form realm - formless realm" idea, is overcoming attachment to equinimity (a.k.a. peace of mind). So the point is that when we break down the barriers (of the illusion of independent self) we not only have our own suffering, we have everyone else's too. Like Simon's ))))))) it is an honor to be part of the reality of others' suffering! But what is that honor/happiness exactly, if i am taking on suffering? Well that is Buddhism.... ...the core of the third noble truth: realization of dependent origination ( see Nagarjuna)

So i undetstand and respect your wish not to kill things. And i think that the best way to support that wisdom further, is to reconcile that wisdom, with the constant killing that is life. For example to breath is to kill. To walk is to kill. Of course as you have said, much worse than going for a nice walking meditation on a sunny day, is going for a nice walking meditation on a sunny day and relishing the death of the countless beings that you are..... ...killing.

Fyi, my personal take on this subject is to limit the suffering of death, sickness, change and fundemental ignorance in other beings. But i also see these as the first noble truth. In other words, life is not a bowl of cherries (CTR), we will all die, all good things will change (and for the worse), we will all get sick, and the one aspect of suffering that we can directly impact is fundemental ignorance. So i am trying to balance this thread with that perspective (death is unavoidable, fundemental ignorance is avoidable).

You seem to be missing the point. Yes, our lives will always be full of suffering. Yes, we all kill accidentally.
But 'ahimsa' is about causing the least harm - in other words not deliberately killing or increasing the suffering of others. Once we start applying it selectively - deliberately killing for comfort, convenience, food, we are along way from ahimsa.

In the case of the rats, closing the place down for a while would have been preferable to the deliberate killing of even one rat, unless I have misunderstood the status of deliberate killing. I'm sure the humans were capable of finding food and closure would never have been necessary just becuase the kitchens were closed down and people had to clean up. The reality is that back then I'm sure a lot of people went to buy cigarettes etc. and food shops were not three days travel away on horseback, but 15 miles away by car.

Well, as with many accounts of events that happened nearly 50 years before you had to be there to appreciate the complexities, the earnest attempts to find the least harmful and least disruptive solution and the grief at the realisation that there was only one real viable option.
As to 'closing the place down' the first of the Three Year Retreats has started some months before with all that entails in logistics and in the vows taken.

At that time (and perhaps still) a centre like Samye-Ling was subject to the same regulations that applied to hotels and restaurants. The relationship with the local authorities and the Forest Commision were already strained to breaking point. It was quite clear that they did not want us there.
A bunch of hippes led by weird robed monks.
The world has changed a lot Buddhism is now generally regarded positively.
Then in Scotland it was seen as dangerous and alien.
A decision was made by the senior members of the Karma Kagyu, including by the 16th Karmapa who was consulted prior to the action taken that it was the least worst option under the circumstances. I think that they know about the application of the Precepts than I do.
I trusted their judgment then, and I still do.
There are few absolutes in Samsara.

If you use the word 'mind' without defining your terms I will ask you politely for a definition.
This is not to be awkward. But it's really not self-explanatory.

Karma is not a justice system. No one is deserving of the karma they reap. What all beings deserve, regardless of their actions, is to enjoy the fruits of their own innate Buddhahood. What they get is, sadly, karma due to their ignorance.

If your view of harmlessness leads you to resent others and condone harm on those who commit harm, this is just another way of inflicting subtle harm. Even murderers will one day become Buddhas and deservedly so.

"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"
--- Gandavyuha Sutra

Karma is not a justice system. No one is deserving of the karma they reap. What all beings deserve, regardless of their actions, is to enjoy the fruits of their own innate Buddhahood. What they get is, sadly, karma due to their ignorance.

If your view of harmlessness leads you to resent others and condone harm on those who commit harm, this is just another way of inflicting subtle harm. Even murderers will one day become Buddhas and deservedly so.

I wrote 'reaping the karma of the act of killing'.
They do not reap karma at all; your second sentence is awry.
They perform karma (the act) and the consequence is vipaka.
Holding a view is not karma at all.
'Ahimsa' is about seeking the path of least harm; this is rarely a path of 'no harm' . Condoning or committing harm to others to avoid greater harm such as killing is perfectly in line with 'ahimsa'. Generally, it is translated as 'non-violent', so there are limits.

In 'Hinduism' ahimsa is seen as an overriding cardinal virtue.
In Buddhism it is seen as one of several ideals that need to be kept in harmony, there is an acceptance of the fact that all things are interdependent and that ahimsa will often mean choosing the lesser of two evils.
In the particular case under discussion, the Karma Kagyu seniors decided that the death of the rats was the lesser of the two evils, after prolonged discussion.

It is possible that had they decided otherwise that a major centre of Dharma in the West which has hosted innumerable teachings and been the base for several hundred individuals doing the Three Year Retreat over the years, which has been a seminary for teachings all over the UK and the mothership for many other centres in Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, The U.S. and Canada would have succumbed two or three years after its foundation.
It might be possible to assert that all this activity was not worth the death of the rats.
Clearly, those senior teachers thought otherwise.

If you use the word 'mind' without defining your terms I will ask you politely for a definition.
This is not to be awkward. But it's really not self-explanatory.